About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
the cliff. that's why the day after the election i tried to speed this process up by making the concession to put revenues on the table. it's unfortunate that the white house has spent three weeks doing basically nothing. >> the administration has presented a plan that calls for $1.6 trillion in new tax revenues. $400 billion in cuts to medicare and other entitlements. $50 billion for a new stimulus and congress would have to give up control over raising the debt limit. republicans have indicated that they want to raise revenue by lowering tax deductions, haven't given any specifics yet. brings us right to white house correspondent brianna keilar. good morning, brianna. >> good morning to you, soledad. yes, things are at an impasse here. i will tell you the white house after not being very happy with the pace of negotiations the week before last sent treasury secretary tim geithner up to the hill to outline this proposal. there's a lot we already knew about that president obama had already taken a public position on. the white house is now saying to republicans as well, we want you to put
? he was just re-elected. why couldn't he put together a package, a deal to avoid this disaster? >> i think this is a question of political leadership. and as that poll showed, there's no doubt that the president has the political advantage going into this. but at some point, and i think we're kind of getting close to it, the president has to be able to pivot and to say how do i turn this political advantage into a real policy accomplishment? and, wolf, i don't think you're going to do that with continued campaign style events like we just saw meeting with middle class families. okay. we get that. that occurred during the campaign. the white house has clearly gotten its message out. i think now there has to be a next step. you know, timing is everything in politics. and this is absolutely no different. what i'm getting from talking to some democrats on the hill is i think there's actually a lot of pent up anger and frustration among democrats how they feel republicans were obstructionist for the last four years. there's a little bit of payback going on here. they've got the advantage.
will get us jobs. >> your fellow georgian and your fellow republican saxby champ business who is up for re-election, he has committed himself to working with the democrats, to try to resolve some of the critical tax and spending issues. do you think he's played a constructive role here? >> well, what i do know is that what the voters on november 6th said is that we don't want ruling by one party. we want divided government. what they said is go back to washington and get to work. provide appropriate leadership and solve these challenges. so whether it is what is happening over in the senate or in the white house right now, i don't see the kind of leadership coming out of -- >> so back to saxby chambliss, sir, i'm not hearing praise. am i to read between the lines in what you're not saying is what you're saying? >> no, look, this takes two to tango. and we don't have the other side tangoing. you can't dance by yourself. when you do, it doesn't work. doesn't look very pretty. we need the administration to engage in a positive way, not a negative the way they are now. >> will you mount a primary chall
on the ballot, proposition 8, california voted in a close election to overturn same sex marriage. same sex marriage was banned after it was briefly legal. the federal district court had a trial there, and said that law, proposition 8, banning same sex marriage, is unconstitutional. that was affirmed on appeal, that is now appealed to the supreme court and they will now decide whether proposition 8 is constitutional or not. >> when we talk about this as being a historical sort of review, clearly there were different laws passed at the state level. so now it is really up to the federal government to kind of step in and say, okay, this is where we have to come together on our thinking. >> it is up to the united states supreme court. not the federal government. the federal government, the last word they have is the defense of marriage act. and what makes this so significant is that the supreme court has not really engaged with the issue of -- of gay rights since 2003. nine years. that's a long time. the country has changed dramatically in those nine years. there is a new gallup poll out that s
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)